...Trinity graduates continue to have prominent roles in the Episcopal diocese, the Rev. Scott Quinn among them. On Tuesday he was among three candidates questioned about the seminary.

Rev. Quinn spoke well of the education he had received there, but said that after his decision to remain in the Episcopal Church, "I feel I am not welcomed" on campus. He called the idea of a diocesan ban on Trinity graduates "ridiculous."

"That's just like saying any other discriminatory thing," he said. "But if the people there want to be part of the Episcopal Church, they have to understand it is a diverse group."

“Assuming I would have a seat on the board, I would very much look forward to finding out what the path forward would be to step into a strong and constructive relationship,” Rev. Woodliff- Stanley said.

Being a bishop does not get one automatic membership on Trinity’s board. Every member of the board must be able to sign Trinity’s Faith Statement ex animo.

I would also suggest that being a TEC Bishop does not preclude one from being on the board but I would think that it would be someone who would uphold “the faith once delivered” and not something made up last week.

Scott Quinn, Trinity grad, is simply a big fat fraud. In January 2008 he signed the famous letter of protest in which twelve allegedly conservative priests broke with Bishop Duncan over leaving TEC. He spoke with the Post Gazette and here is how it was reported:

The group does not support ordination of openly gay clergy or conducting same-sex blessings, the so-called “innovations” at the forefront of denominational disputes since 2003. However, members said they do not believe it is necessary to leave the Episcopal Church

Now, after serving as canon to radical revisionist provisional Bishop Price, he has been nominated by petition as a candidate to replace Bishop Duncan. And he is singing a different tune to the Post Gazette:

Rev. Quinn describes himself as a theological conservative but said the church has room for differing ways of ministry among gay people… If a parish wanted to call a partnered gay priest, he would speak with the clergy and lay leaders to make sure they had engaged in prayerful discernment. “If I can get a sense that the congregation is on board with this, then we would let them do what they have chosen.”

And at a walk-about he said this about gay clergy and same-sex blessings:

Quinn answered that difficult questions have defined the Diocese of Pittsburgh in the past, and this is not a good thing. Currently, the Commission on Ministry seeks candidates who believe in Jesus and are called to ministry. Under a Bishop Quinn, it will continue to be the policy to ordain such people (presumably without regard to sexual orientation or other considerations). The policy on same-sex blessings should be decided by individual congregations.

I certainly hope Trinity does not put him on the board should he win the election in April…

Sorry about the link. TSM’s position on same-sex blessings is clear. I cannot imagine that any bishop who either approved of same-sex blessings, or believed that the church could ordain “partnered gay priests” would have a snowball’s chance in a very hot place of being asked to serve on TSM’s Board.

Dr. Witt,
As the official spokesman for TSM here in the blogosphere, perhaps you could answer a couple of questions from a former Anglican and TESM grad?

1.) Is it simply a nasty rumor that - per TESM’s original charter - the local Episcopal Bishop is to be automatically granted a seat on the Board, assuming that he wishes to accept it? Or…is it now being argued that Abp. Duncan is the “local Bishop” whose royal behind occupies the golden cathedra?

2.) Why does TSM not disaffiliate from TEC altogether? Surely the TEC blood money coming in from South Carolina and Albany isn’t enough to cover the cost of your eternal souls?

RE: “Surely the TEC blood money coming in from South Carolina and Albany isn’t enough to cover the cost of your eternal souls?”

Right—because as everybody knows, our works “cost” us our “eternal souls.” And retaining membership in a corrupt organization will clearly delete the said members’ salvation earned for them by Christ on the cross.

What I want to know is did TESM cause such inflated portentiousness and shoddy theology? Or was it a genetic thing and there was just nothing that TESM could do about it?

Sarah,
“Right—because as everybody knows, our works “cost” us our “eternal souls.” And retaining membership in a corrupt organization will clearly delete the said members’ salvation earned for them by Christ on the cross.”

Point taken…so please explain to me why it was necessary for Abp. Duncan and company to initiate a schism and effectively split a historically conservative diocese? I was present at Dean’s Hour the morning Bp. Duncan announced his break from TEC. He was pretty emphatic that the Pgh. congregations would keep their buildings if the majority of parishes followed him. Why was all of that necessary if continued affiliation with a corrupt organization is not part of a larger salvific issue.

Further, why has TSM lined up - almost exclusively - behind ACNA and Abp. Duncan if the aforementioned affiliation is not problematic?

RE: “why it was necessary for Abp. Duncan and company to initiate a schism . . . “

An interesting way to phrase a question.

I don’t think it was “necessary” first of all—nor do I recall hearing most of the leavers asserting that they would physically die or go to hell if they did not. One may choose all sorts of things that are not absolutely “necessary” to life or heaven and hell—God has blessedly allowed us to have a variety of choices as long as such choices are not *intrinsically* evil/sinful.

And of course, I don’t think choosing to leave a denominational organization is “schism” in and of itself [there have to be additional factors], much less “initiating” schism. So that doesn’t fly either.

I can’t pretend to know what is in Bishop Duncan’s head or heart, but of the folks I’ve talked with and maintained relationships with who left TEC [many many people] they generally did not wish to be a part of the *larger* corrupt and heretical organization.

I can understand that. There’s certainly a lot to see as positive in leaving a rotting corpse of a larger organization controlled by people on the national level who don’t believe the Gospel. I have plenty of friends and family members who have left TEC because they simply did not wish to be a part of such an organization. I understand that.

Certainly I wish that the real Diocese of Pittsburgh hadn’t left TEC and I thought at the time it was a really bad idea. But then, I obviously don’t share some of the theology and values and principles that guided those who made that decision do, and I can accept that and move on and wish those who leave TEC all the success in the world. I’m very happy that those who left and yet still wish to be involved with an Anglican organization have such an entity, even though I’ve been very open about what I see as massive defects and intrinsic flaws in that organization. There needed to be a place for those who wished to leave TEC and yet be a part of an Anglican organization—and with ACNA there is.

As far as why TSM has structured itself as it has—I haven’t kept up with their structure, so I’m not aware of the details. They certainly have various Episcopalians on their board, and various professors that are Episcopalian, and their graduates go to numerous dioceses in TEC. For example, we just recently got a great priest in our diocese, and he came from the Diocese of Mississippi, so I think reports that only Albany and SC are getting Trinity’s clergy are rather inaccurate.

If Trinity has indeed “lined up—almost exclusively—behind ACNA” then I think that was a huge strategic mistake and pretty deadly for its future enrollment since let’s face it, ACNA is still dwarfed in size by TEC even if one accepts ACNA’s assertions of size and also lowers TEC’s membership to double its ASA which would come to around 1.4 million—but sometimes organizations choose to do such strategically inept things.

I don’t know that Trinity has done that, however, so I can’t really comment fully on why since I don’t know that they have.

RE: “So am I to understand you as having a “me and Jesus” ecclesiology - as long as you accept Jesus into your heart, the continuing fracture of the Body of Christ is unimportant? . . . “

Yeh, yeh . . . that’s it. That’s just what I was saying! [oh hey—nice cut of the next four words there . . . ]

[snort]

RE: “And for the record, TSM has one professor who is active in TEC, while two others continue to keep their Orders in dioceses in which they have never resided, while serving in ACNA parishes.”

Good to know I was correct. Three professors have not chosen to leave TEC, and this despite the seminary being in an utterly ghastly and revisionist “diocese” [sic] like the faux one in Pittsburgh that violated TEC’s canons in order to purport to form so that it could then have a good enough set-up to promptly set about suing the real diocese. So you’ve got three professors, two of which *despite there being so few Gospel-parishes in the area and having to serve in ACNA parishes* refusing to leave TEC. Good for them!